From the EEOC web site;
https://www1.eeoc.gov//laws/practices/index.cfm?renderforprint=1

Recruitment
It is also illegal for an employer to recruit new employees in a way that discriminates against them because of their race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.​

For example, an employer's reliance on word-of-mouth recruitment by its mostly Hispanic work force may violate the law if the result is that almost all new hires are Hispanic.​

Application & Hiring
It is illegal for an employer to discriminate against a job applicant because of his or her race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. For example, an employer may not refuse to give employment applications to people of a certain race.​

An employer may not base hiring decisions on stereotypes and assumptions about a person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
​

And there are several key legal cases on point that basically state when management, either in writing or by action, expresses a preference for, or an exclusion of, a protected class, that is illegal. You should perhaps Google for them.

You remind Shooter of a company he consulted for once; the consultation was to help the company avoid future charges of discrimination.
After meeting with the all white male management group and suffering through several hours of "How can we word our policy and practices to avoid appearing discriminatory while still hiring only white males?" Shooter pointed out that the EEOC would take one look at the all white, all male management team, and the all white, all male workforce, and conclude they were still discriminating, no matter what their policy said, no matter how they recruited, and no matter what their stated practice was.

His parting remark to the now angry CEO was "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and shits like a duck, you can reliably conclude that it is a duck", and that is exactly what the EEOC will conclude when they follow up with you.

And yes, he still cashed their check.

 

............ and in fact a year or so later Shooter saw where the EEOC again nailed the company for discrimination based on their hiring practices.
The company was still all white male, except for, you know, a couple of "office managers" who were really just hourly sales clerks, hired to show the companies "good faith efforts" to comply with the EEOC settlement terms in the first action.
The problem was, the white male managers told the "office managers" when they hired them that they were token hires, and would never be promoted cause, you know, only men can really succeed in this job".
The office managers thought the EEOC would like to know about that.
Turns out, the EEOC did.

 

As I said, her "preference" should be ignored in hiring. If she were to push the issue either with current or future employees, that would be different

 

Maybe. If she is the one who decides new hires. If she made her hiring decisions based on what she liked and not merit. If she could control what job opportunities perspective hired were made aware of and especially if a pattern of such behavior was evident.
In which case it would be me agreeing with them.
Until that can be shown, I'll hold my opinion of their hiring practices and avoid any interviews with her..